Effects of In-Season Velocity- Versus Percentage-Based Training in Academy Rugby League Players

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the effects of velocity-based training (VBT) vs percentage-based training (PBT) on strength, speed, and jump performance in academy rugby league players during a 7-wk in-season mesocycle. Methods: A total of 27 rugby league players competing in the Super League U19s Championship were randomized to VBT (n = 12) or PBT (n = 15). Both groups completed a 7-wk resistance-training intervention (2×/wk) that involved the back squat. The PBT group used a fixed load based on a percentage of 1-repetition maximum (1-RM), whereas the VBT group used a modifiable load based on individualized velocity thresholds. Biomechanical and perceptual data were collected during each training session. Back-squat 1-RM, countermovement jump, reactive strength index, sprint times, and back-squat velocity at 40–90% 1-RM were assessed pretraining and posttraining. Results: The PBT group showed likely to most likely improvements in 1-RM strength and reactive strength index, whereas the VBT group showed likely to very likely improvements in 1-RM strength, countermovement jump height, and back-squat velocity at 40% and 60% 1-RM. Sessional velocity and power were most likely greater during VBT compared with PBT (standardized mean differences = 1.8–2.4), while time under tension and perceptual training stress were likely lower (standardized mean differences = 0.49–0.66). The improvement in back-squat velocity at 60% 1-RM was likely greater following VBT compared with PBT (standardized mean difference = 0.50). Conclusion: VBT can be implemented during the competitive season, instead of traditional PBT, to improve training stimuli, decrease training stress, and promote velocity-specific adaptations.

Reliability of technologies to measure the barbell velocity: Implications for monitoring resistance training

“…There is increasing evidences showing that VBT could be more effective than traditional training methods to decrease training stress and improve velocity-specific adaptations [10,11]. An optimal VBT prescription needs the use of reliable devices to accurately measure the barbell velocity for effectively managing the training load and maximize the adaptive responses.…”

Effects of subjective and objective autoregulation methods for intensity and volume on enhancing maximal strength during resistance-training interventions: a systematic review

“…For the velocity targets experimental groups ( Dorrell, Smith & Gee, 2019 ; Orange et al, 2019 ; Shattock & Tee, 2020 ), when training with the resistance exercise back squat, an ES between <0.8 and 0.5 was achieved for two experimental groups, while an ES < 0.5 was achieved for two other groups. Only one study assessed the ES on strict overhead press and deadlifts, where the ES was 0.52 and 0.36.…”

“…(1) Velocity targets + velocity loss threshold to terminate the set, ( Galiano et al, 2020 ; Pareja-Blanco et al, 2020 ; Pareja-Blanco et al, 2017a , 2017b ; Rodríguez-Rosell et al, 2020 ; Sánchez-Moreno et al, 2020 ). (2) Set average velocity + velocity loss threshold ( Dorrell, Smith & Gee, 2019 ; Orange et al, 2019 ; Shattock & Tee, 2020 ). These methods differ, where the set average velocity + velocity loss thresholds start with an external load prescribed from a load-velocity profile, which needs to decrease until a pre-determined velocity zone for the set to end.…”

The Reliability and Validity of Current Technologies for Measuring Barbell Velocity in the Free-Weight Back Squat and Power Clean

“…Velocity-based methods for prescription (i.e., load-manipulation [ 38 , 39 ] and volume control [ 40 ]), testing, and monitoring (i.e., load-velocity profiling [ 37 ]) are frequently applied to sport science support and research. Practitioners, therefore, must be confident in the technology they use to ensure effective implementation.…”